Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1):Why can't PW build their own engine? Is there some restriction on thrust? Can't PW enter a full range of engines if they choose?

I should imagine that Airbus would be happy to talk to PW about it and I've no doubt that PW could design and build such an engine but it seems unlikely. PW have been cautious about designing engines for new models (starting with the A340-500/-600 if not sooner) and the A350XWB must still be seen as quite a gamble.

It seems out of the question that PW would propose an engine solely for the -1000 so unless Airbus want to offer three engines on the A350 range (and I'm sure they don't) then GE would need to be knocked out of the picture before there's room for PW.

Airlines have apparently said that they want an engine choice on the A350. RR are signed up but Airbus may have trouble finding a second supplier.

If P&W couldn't get their business case to close on the B787, they are definitely not going to be able to do it on the A350 XWB.

Since airlines demand an engine choice, it seems to me that GE is in a pretty good negotiation position. Even if GE officially is saying that they will not develop an engine for the A350-1000, they have plenty of time to change their minds.

Quoting PM (Thread starter):And it seems that talks between Airbus and GE to put the GEnx on the A350-800/-900 are still some way from agreement.

Looks like RR will have the A350-1000 all to itself.

If ever the term "Pie in the Sky" seem appropriate it is now with the A350-1000. On e could argue that the A350 XWB is still miles from being frozen in design. Since the big SQ announcement the game keeps changing from panels to barrels and so forth.

I suspect that the lack of announcements and orders (SQ included) means that the engineers are having trouble trying to match Leahy's glossy brochure. Apart from FinnAir who seem to have 'screwed' Airbus into honouring the original A350 version 6 price there has been a distinct lack of progress in the orders department.

With the delay in Boeing launching the 787-10 I believe is because they are waiting for Airbus to freeze the design. I also think that Boeing are finding it difficult to achieve the -10 objectives with around 245T MTOW and a four wheel main bogie. I suspect Airbus are also struggling in 'matching' the 787 let alone beating it.

The problem for Airbus is how do they tackle the the physical uplift and size of a 773 with only a 4 wheel main gear and somewhere around 250T MTOW.

The Airbus cheerleaders on this site have always proclaimed that the A350-1000 will slaughter the 77W for range and payload. I would like to know how. Maybe the A350 will have 6 wheel main gear and much larger than planned engines and a MTOW approaching the 340 odd ton of 77W and therefore even longer delay and cost to EIS

I find it very interesting that GE are not particularly interested in the A350 (particularly) the stretch 1000 version.

Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 4):Yes, and GE has their hands full with the 787, 777 LR series, 748, future 767/777 tanker, and the 737NG and 737RS engines they are involved in.

This appears quite logical but there is no doubting that GE and Boeing have become quite close. Is GE taking a calculated risk not to enter or are their hands too full as mentioned above.

Did Boeing have some sort of agreement regarding the GE 90-115B that it cannot be used on anything else.

It all comes back to Airbus trying to compete with the 777/787 combo with the one aircraft. Perhaps they should have slapped Trent 1000s and GEnx on the A330 and developed a twin engined competitor to tackle C market 777s which are killing Airbus A345/6 sales.

PMRR being the sole supplier will be great for RR but not the Airlines as the market will lack the competitive contests to supply powerplants which obviously bring the price down.

Interesting times ahead.... when was SQ supposed to sign??.... maybe when their lawyers have finished with the performance guarantee part of the contract........

Quoting PM (Thread starter):Interesting that the announcement comes from GE rather than the Engine Alliance.

The 350 Trents appear not to have been fully defined, which make me wonder if they will not come in quite a bit ahead of the T1000s? The 787 Trents have been running for ?about a year while RR do not seem to have finalized the configuration for the T-XWBs - or am I not reading the RR site correctly?

Possibly, but only if the A350 itself is a success. And that's still far from being a given. Having de facto exclusivity on the A345/A346 hasn't been a huge moneyspinner for RR.

Quoting LH452 (Reply 13):Do you seriously believe that Boeing's successor to the 737 will be offered with only one engine.

Well, the successor to the 737-300/-400/-500 has only one engine and it has been widely rumoured that Boeing only wanted one engine on the 787. I wouldn't rule it out.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 11):The 350 Trents appear not to have been fully defined, which make me wonder if they will not come in quite a bit ahead of the T1000s?

Being so far behind the 787 and especially the GE90s on the 777LRs, RR and Airbus must come up with some winning cards if they really want to beat Boeing. The Trent 500 was no great development of previous engines and Airbus (and RR) are paying the price. RR really need to pull some rabbits out of their hat this time.

Quoting PM (Reply 17):The Trent 500 was no great development of previous engines and Airbus (and RR) are paying the price.

You are not wrong there PM. As a RR fan you are very aware that the Trent 500 is a disappointment when compared to the rest of the Trent Family and in particular A330 and 772 RR powerplants.

As for the GE 90-115B that performed way above what anyone would have expected in terms of reliability and efficiency.

We may see in the future with the A350-1000 a glimpse of what the Trent 8104 might have been had RR got onto the "C" market 777s.

Quoting PM (Reply 17):RR really need to pull some rabbits out of their hat this time.

I suspect that with similar twin engine airframes that the differences between Trent 1000 and GEnx will not be as great as between GE 90-115B and Trent 500. Actually PM despite GE picking up QF for 787 powerplants I expect GE and RR to maintain the same sort of similar "duopoly" that Airbus and Boeing have now.........

Quoting PM (Reply 17):Well, the successor to the 737-300/-400/-500 has only one engine and it has been widely rumoured that Boeing only wanted one engine on the 787. I wouldn't rule it out.

I wouldn't rule anything out, but I believe there very specific reasons behind IAE's decision not put the V25 on the 737NG. Boeing was very clear on that wanted two engines on the 787 based on lessons learned from the initial 777, where the airlines had three options. It did not make economical sense for the engine companies.

Quoting LH452 (Reply 21):I believe there very specific reasons behind IAE's decision not put the V25 on the 737NG

It was touted for a while but never happened. My understanding is not that IAE "decided" not to put the V2500 on the 737NG but that Boeing wouldn't have them.

Quoting LH452 (Reply 21):Boeing was very clear on that wanted two engines on the 787 based on lessons learned from the initial 777, where the airlines had three options. It did not make economical sense for the engine companies.

Yes and no. What they were "clear" about was not wanting three engines. That doesn't mean they were all that keen on two.

Quoting LH452 (Reply 21):Boeing was very clear on that wanted two engines on the 787 based on lessons learned from the initial 777, where the airlines had three options. It did not make economical sense for the engine companies.

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 23):Quoting LH452 (Reply 21):
Boeing was very clear on that wanted two engines on the 787 based on lessons learned from the initial 777, where the airlines had three options. It did not make economical sense for the engine companies.

Boeing considered one, but airlines objected.

Is objected the right word? I cant see airlines objecting to having another option available to them on the 787, it could even give them a reason for further discounts on the engines! They probably just did not have much interest. How many airlines have ordered 787s that dont have GE or RR on their 767s?

25 Atmx2000
: Boeing considered having one engine manufacturer only. They were told no by the airlines.[Edited 2007-03-08 15:41:03]

26 SCAT15F
: One thing is for sure- P&W has got to get on the ball with a next generation replacement for the PW-4000 series if it plans to be competitive with GE